I have a question for the Board concerning 'sources' and I was wondering if someone could help me.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Tue, 09/12/2017 - 9:18am

I've been meaning to ask this question for a while. What brings it up today is a story that I was going to post that I saw on the Washington Times site. I saw the story and was thinking about starting a discussion but problem was when I looked for other sources, I could only back it up with Faux Snooze . I decided that since so many 'left' leaning posters on the places that I haunt throw a conniption if you use either of those sources, I would just bypass the whole thing. I have seen some people raked over the coals for doing just that, using 'sources' not sanctioned by the management. Hells bells, the place most of us got booted off of is a PERFECT example of what I mean.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, the reason I am bringing this up is because this place isn't narrow minded or judgmental. People here operate on informed opinions and intellect and NOT petty, personal, or partisan viewpoints (for lack of a better term). So what are considered 'reliable' sources? Because I have even (albeit rarely) seen stuff on Breitbart that turned out to be true. What are our standards? I look for other sources but sometimes there isn't one. If it's breaking news or a 'scoop' other sources may not have it for a while. And then there's the 'stopped clock is still right twice a day' principal. Hence my confusion.

Comments

I think the NYT and WaPo are fake news. I think much is dependent on the presentation by the writer.
I think the source has to be identified and let people form their own conclusions. If I wanted to post about visits from outer space and UFOs being real, could I? I don't know, and are they real? I think this is something JtC has to address.

Our politicians and their owners have destroyed most everyone's faith in our government and our institutions. False flags are a prime example.

Never Forget: The US Government Has A Known History Of Using False Flags

I think the NYT and WaPo are fake news. I think much is dependent on the presentation by the writer.
I think the source has to be identified and let people form their own conclusions. If I wanted to post about visits from outer space and UFOs being real, could I? I don't know, and are they real? I think this is something JtC has to address.

Our politicians and their owners have destroyed most everyone's faith in our government and our institutions. False flags are a prime example.

Never Forget: The US Government Has A Known History Of Using False Flags

Florida today. It's non-political though, even though everything really is political. People can just read it and say, "What a same!" and then finish their coffee. It would not occur to many that our two party system is screwing the environment. There is truth, even on WaPo and NYT, but it assumes that no one will do anything about it.

I think the NYT and WaPo are fake news. I think much is dependent on the presentation by the writer.
I think the source has to be identified and let people form their own conclusions. If I wanted to post about visits from outer space and UFOs being real, could I? I don't know, and are they real? I think this is something JtC has to address.

Our politicians and their owners have destroyed most everyone's faith in our government and our institutions. False flags are a prime example.

Never Forget: The US Government Has A Known History Of Using False Flags

cite your source up front and define the level of believability up front. Video is video unless it has some obvious giveaway, even if it's Alex Jones. Opinion, if introduced as opinion, is a valid discussion topic - for what it is - even if it's from the Washington Post if identified as such. (the CIA says…)
It's called a shit detector. We all have one. Sometimes it needs more information or some fine tuning, but if the moderators don't respect that we have them it's on them, not you.

cite your source up front and define the level of believability up front. Video is video unless it has some obvious giveaway, even if it's Alex Jones. Opinion, if introduced as opinion, is a valid discussion topic - for what it is - even if it's from the Washington Post if identified as such. (the CIA says…)
It's called a shit detector. We all have one. Sometimes it needs more information or some fine tuning, but if the moderators don't respect that we have them it's on them, not you.

Although I am a moderator here, the following is my personal take on this issue. I am not speaking for the moderation team in this comment because it has not been discussed by the team as a whole.

My personal rule of thumb is that no one source should be completely off limits or discounted simply because it was forbidden elsewhere. However, if and when I use certain sources that can cause some people to have heart burn, I try to find an additional source to back it up. This is simply my way of maintaining my own credibility here at Caucus99.

The MSM media has failed the people of the United States by either not reporting or by covering up some important stories that affect us all. For example, in the case of the Awan brothers spy ring in Congress, there has been zero to very little (and often slanted) coverage in the MSM. However, there has been considerable coverage in on line media with several on line sites covering and reporting about it. Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller has been doing significant reporting. I am not going to discount his reporting simply because it appears in the Daily Caller, especially when we are seeing other sources providing some or much corroborating information.

IMO, one of the best things about this site is that our members treat each other as adults. If we are adults, we should be able to use our personal critical thinking skills to determine what to believe or not to believe. I also want to add that I am a firm believer in healthy skepticism. Without it, we are simply sheep, and who wants to be a sheep?

up

17 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~CantStoptheMacedonianSignal

Although I am a moderator here, the following is my personal take on this issue. I am not speaking for the moderation team in this comment because it has not been discussed by the team as a whole.

My personal rule of thumb is that no one source should be completely off limits or discounted simply because it was forbidden elsewhere. However, if and when I use certain sources that can cause some people to have heart burn, I try to find an additional source to back it up. This is simply my way of maintaining my own credibility here at Caucus99.

The MSM media has failed the people of the United States by either not reporting or by covering up some important stories that affect us all. For example, in the case of the Awan brothers spy ring in Congress, there has been zero to very little (and often slanted) coverage in the MSM. However, there has been considerable coverage in on line media with several on line sites covering and reporting about it. Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller has been doing significant reporting. I am not going to discount his reporting simply because it appears in the Daily Caller, especially when we are seeing other sources providing some or much corroborating information.

IMO, one of the best things about this site is that our members treat each other as adults. If we are adults, we should be able to use our personal critical thinking skills to determine what to believe or not to believe. I also want to add that I am a firm believer in healthy skepticism. Without it, we are simply sheep, and who wants to be a sheep?

Especially sheep in a bubble, the latter of which would be likely to rapidly wind up smelling like increasing manure, going by certain restricted and party-line spewing sites, at least one of which many of us might have ditched.

I'd say that it's far better to encounter even propaganda which you may recall having been thoroughly disproved, so that you can provide your evidence and discuss matters from there in a civilized fashion or agree to disagree, than to have civil disagreement and discourse squelched for the sake of censorship. The latter being something which I find both depressing and disgusting, as well as limiting. There are a number of areas in which various theories/claims at which I'd once laughed turned out to actually make sense and be at least potentially factual once I finally looked through them typically out of boredom, for amusement value. There really was dirty work at Benghazi, for instance, even though the right-wing propagandists never went after the real issues...

Certainly, many here will know more about this than I, but just in case:

Pulitzer-Prize Winning Reporter Sy Hersh: Benghazi Is a HUGE Scandal … But Not For the Reason You Think
Posted on April 15, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Beyond Partisan Politics: What Benghazi Is Really About

... That’s the part you’ve heard about: failure to protect the personnel at the embassy.

But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Hersh isn’t the first to report on this major scandal.

We’ve extensively documented that the bigger story behind the murder of ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi embassy in Libya is that the embassy was the center of U.S. efforts to arm jihadis in Syria who are trying to topple the Syrian government.

We’ve also noted that this is not a partisan issue … both parties greenlighted regime change in Syria years ago, and both parties have tried to cover up what was really going on in Benghazi. ...

... The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate. And former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms:

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack....

... Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:

More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?

Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life. ...

... In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also discuss that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.
Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation. And see this.

This seems to be the only site still showing this, at least under my search terms and on the 1st page... There used to be one complete with the actual recording available. At any rate, I recall wondering if this was the/an actual reason for that resignation, not having bothered to look into 'right-wing nonsense like laughable BENGHAZI!' due to brainwashing I'd failed to even recognize...

...Scant media follow up occurred following the revelation this month that Fox News attempted in 2011 to recruit Gen. David Petraeus, left, the nation's war commander in Afghanistan, to fight President Obama for the 2012 presidency as the GOP's candidate. Even though Petraeus declined the invitation, the long, friendly discussion constitutes an astounding breach of law requiring loyalty by uniformed officers to the commander-in-chief and also the supposed independence of the media from picking sides in political contests. ...

... To recap: Roger Ailes, right, founder and chairman of Fox News, tried to recruit Petraeus to become the GOP's 2012 nominee in a race against President Obama, as Washington Post editor Bob Woodward reported early this month. Woodward's story was based on a tape recording of a 90-minute discussion between Petraeus and Fox emissary Kathleen McFarland, a Fox analyst and former high-ranking GOP national security aide. The transcript is here.

Carl Bernstein, Woodward's former colleague at the Post in the Watergate investigation, published a column last week, Why the US media ignored Murdoch's brazen bid to hijack the presidency.

Jonathan Cook followed up with an even more provocative column, OpEd News, Why the Washington Post killed the story of Murdoch's bid to buy the US presidency. Cook, based in Israel, wrote,"Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire – notably Fox News – to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election." Cook argued that the effort represented not only a danger to democracy, but that the scant coverage illustrated media complicity by organizations in addition to Fox News. ...

Seems as though there are a lot of billionaire-type people trying to buy/pick who Americans are permitted to vote for... and that one never can tell when one's being a bubble-head until flooded with (what one thinks are actual, verifiable) facts.

Although I am a moderator here, the following is my personal take on this issue. I am not speaking for the moderation team in this comment because it has not been discussed by the team as a whole.

My personal rule of thumb is that no one source should be completely off limits or discounted simply because it was forbidden elsewhere. However, if and when I use certain sources that can cause some people to have heart burn, I try to find an additional source to back it up. This is simply my way of maintaining my own credibility here at Caucus99.

The MSM media has failed the people of the United States by either not reporting or by covering up some important stories that affect us all. For example, in the case of the Awan brothers spy ring in Congress, there has been zero to very little (and often slanted) coverage in the MSM. However, there has been considerable coverage in on line media with several on line sites covering and reporting about it. Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller has been doing significant reporting. I am not going to discount his reporting simply because it appears in the Daily Caller, especially when we are seeing other sources providing some or much corroborating information.

IMO, one of the best things about this site is that our members treat each other as adults. If we are adults, we should be able to use our personal critical thinking skills to determine what to believe or not to believe. I also want to add that I am a firm believer in healthy skepticism. Without it, we are simply sheep, and who wants to be a sheep?

up

5 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

It has a real meaning for me because the Benghazi incident was when I saw with some clarity the inner workings of Neocon propaganda. It really changed me. It was a gift and I gained unusual insight. For me, it was never about Hillary. In fact, she was the key distraction that allowed the entire nation to be seamlessly bamboozled. Both sides. There's a dramatic story about gaslighting and mind control waiting to be told there.

There were no good sources of information and at the same time, there were too many good ones to count. In the end, the NYTimes became the only acceptable source in the US, and everything it published about Benghazi was a masterpiece of brain washing. There was literally not a soul you could talk to, anywhere. Since then, I've seen several forbidden topics, of astonishing gravity, that pass before us unseen.

Makes me think of physics and how very involved we are in creating reality.

Especially sheep in a bubble, the latter of which would be likely to rapidly wind up smelling like increasing manure, going by certain restricted and party-line spewing sites, at least one of which many of us might have ditched.

I'd say that it's far better to encounter even propaganda which you may recall having been thoroughly disproved, so that you can provide your evidence and discuss matters from there in a civilized fashion or agree to disagree, than to have civil disagreement and discourse squelched for the sake of censorship. The latter being something which I find both depressing and disgusting, as well as limiting. There are a number of areas in which various theories/claims at which I'd once laughed turned out to actually make sense and be at least potentially factual once I finally looked through them typically out of boredom, for amusement value. There really was dirty work at Benghazi, for instance, even though the right-wing propagandists never went after the real issues...

Certainly, many here will know more about this than I, but just in case:

Pulitzer-Prize Winning Reporter Sy Hersh: Benghazi Is a HUGE Scandal … But Not For the Reason You Think
Posted on April 15, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Beyond Partisan Politics: What Benghazi Is Really About

... That’s the part you’ve heard about: failure to protect the personnel at the embassy.

But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Hersh isn’t the first to report on this major scandal.

We’ve extensively documented that the bigger story behind the murder of ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi embassy in Libya is that the embassy was the center of U.S. efforts to arm jihadis in Syria who are trying to topple the Syrian government.

We’ve also noted that this is not a partisan issue … both parties greenlighted regime change in Syria years ago, and both parties have tried to cover up what was really going on in Benghazi. ...

... The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate. And former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms:

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack....

... Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:

More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?

Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life. ...

... In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also discuss that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.
Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation. And see this.

This seems to be the only site still showing this, at least under my search terms and on the 1st page... There used to be one complete with the actual recording available. At any rate, I recall wondering if this was the/an actual reason for that resignation, not having bothered to look into 'right-wing nonsense like laughable BENGHAZI!' due to brainwashing I'd failed to even recognize...

...Scant media follow up occurred following the revelation this month that Fox News attempted in 2011 to recruit Gen. David Petraeus, left, the nation's war commander in Afghanistan, to fight President Obama for the 2012 presidency as the GOP's candidate. Even though Petraeus declined the invitation, the long, friendly discussion constitutes an astounding breach of law requiring loyalty by uniformed officers to the commander-in-chief and also the supposed independence of the media from picking sides in political contests. ...

... To recap: Roger Ailes, right, founder and chairman of Fox News, tried to recruit Petraeus to become the GOP's 2012 nominee in a race against President Obama, as Washington Post editor Bob Woodward reported early this month. Woodward's story was based on a tape recording of a 90-minute discussion between Petraeus and Fox emissary Kathleen McFarland, a Fox analyst and former high-ranking GOP national security aide. The transcript is here.

Carl Bernstein, Woodward's former colleague at the Post in the Watergate investigation, published a column last week, Why the US media ignored Murdoch's brazen bid to hijack the presidency.

Jonathan Cook followed up with an even more provocative column, OpEd News, Why the Washington Post killed the story of Murdoch's bid to buy the US presidency. Cook, based in Israel, wrote,"Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire – notably Fox News – to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election." Cook argued that the effort represented not only a danger to democracy, but that the scant coverage illustrated media complicity by organizations in addition to Fox News. ...

Seems as though there are a lot of billionaire-type people trying to buy/pick who Americans are permitted to vote for... and that one never can tell when one's being a bubble-head until flooded with (what one thinks are actual, verifiable) facts.

up

6 users have voted.

—

As it reaches its endgame, a poorly regulated capitalism becomes cannibalism.

It has a real meaning for me because the Benghazi incident was when I saw with some clarity the inner workings of Neocon propaganda. It really changed me. It was a gift and I gained unusual insight. For me, it was never about Hillary. In fact, she was the key distraction that allowed the entire nation to be seamlessly bamboozled. Both sides. There's a dramatic story about gaslighting and mind control waiting to be told there.

There were no good sources of information and at the same time, there were too many good ones to count. In the end, the NYTimes became the only acceptable source in the US, and everything it published about Benghazi was a masterpiece of brain washing. There was literally not a soul you could talk to, anywhere. Since then, I've seen several forbidden topics, of astonishing gravity, that pass before us unseen.

Makes me think of physics and how very involved we are in creating reality.

up

4 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Yet another reason for publicly funded, independent science, rather than those dependent on producing at least apparent results their corporate paymasters will like, lol.

As well as one for positive thinking, planning and action, obviously. Shall we all get together and focus our thoughts on all of the Psychopaths and Parasites That Be interfering in public policy and destroying the planetary life support system for increased profits being magically transported to that luxurious but isolated island someone here had suggested that they all be restricted to? I'm thinking a nice bubble-city on Mars - or further.

There are bits on the internet. They only become reliable when I validate them. So in that vein, I suppose, C99 is my most reliable source. This is where I turn to when I'm trying to learn more about something.

In terms of un-worthy sources, there are also none. There are only unworthy posters here at C99. Insofar as I'm concerned I assume that the original poster did at least some validation on a story or else clearly states that they have not so the story is a big ?maybe?. So when someone posts something from Fox News I assume that the story is [mostly] all right. If that assumption turns out to be incorrect in a repeat pattern I'll flag that particular poster as unreliable.

My contempt for grown adults pretending to do adult discussion using "attack the source" as a strategy is boundless.

and I can't find other sources to back it up. I put a note in my comment stating thatI am unsure if this website is valid or not.
And as usual, gulfgal's comment is what I believe. We are adults and if we post something that isn't verified or is known propaganda, other users let us know. Politely.
Thanks for bringing this up.

up

6 users have voted.

—

The Democrats are beyond morally bankrupt. The Party’s very soul has been replaced with pure ratfuckery.

and the same can be said of news that isn't covered. A lone blogger might just be the only source for a true story and a headline story carried by all "respected" mainstream sources could be a manufactured product created to manipulate public opinion.

There is no Walter Cronkite gold standard in the news today. We have all been forced to either pick a side and trust blindly, or develop our skills in teasing out the truth from a variety of suspect sources. The latter path is viewed by some as that of the conspiracy theorist, but it may well be the only place where the the truth may be found. In any event, it is the path I have chosen.

we don't have an approved list of sources here. we have a fairly sophisticated readership who can generally evaluate the sources for themselves. so if you quote something sketchy, people will pick up on that and perhaps express skepticism about it when commenting. we try to handle it all politely, though.

up

10 users have voted.

—

“The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing devision of the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.”

or frequently wrong, doesn't mean that it is always wrong. Likewise a site that has usually been correct can easily be mistaken. Many of the issues currently being raised and discussed have two or more opposing "sides" that offer contradictory evidence in support of one conclusion or another. Usually, there is at least some validity to both sides of any given controversy, but one is unlikely to find opposing views being presented in the same place.

News always comes through, or via some intermediary, and the intermediary always has a particular viewpoint or "access" to the information that he or she conveys. Much, or most of the news we read is second or third hand information, such that its provenance, or "chain of custody" is just as important as the news itself. Perhaps "the news" is evolving into a kind of open-source intelligence network, where "raw intelligence" gets sifted and analyzed in various ways.

I like people's idea to state that a source might be unreliable. I paste my links in so you can see the source. I often find myself having to ask about both ideas and sources.

Case in point - have you heard the idea that TPTB are manipulating the weather? As a scientist this sounds fishy to me, but also as a scientist, I'll listen if I hear evidence.
Here's a link to this hypothesis (8 min)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFlSCPPRRYE

I would like more evidence, but I'm not discounting the possibility.

And so it is with all sources. Even the NYT and WaPo have credible information occasionally. C99ers are good to ask about fishy sources and that's one of the reasons we come here.

up

9 users have voted.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Disclaimer
2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release. ...

... Executive Summary
In 2025, US aerospace forces can “own the weather” by capitalizing on emerging technologies andfocusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact
operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military
objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.
A high-risk, high-rew ard endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of
natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting
commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1.

Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future ...

I like people's idea to state that a source might be unreliable. I paste my links in so you can see the source. I often find myself having to ask about both ideas and sources.

Case in point - have you heard the idea that TPTB are manipulating the weather? As a scientist this sounds fishy to me, but also as a scientist, I'll listen if I hear evidence.
Here's a link to this hypothesis (8 min)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFlSCPPRRYE

I would like more evidence, but I'm not discounting the possibility.

And so it is with all sources. Even the NYT and WaPo have credible information occasionally. C99ers are good to ask about fishy sources and that's one of the reasons we come here.

up

3 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

regarding sourcing material--the papers that 'cater' to the One Percent, are often the most factually correct. IOW, publishers don't tend to lie to them.

BTW, he was speaking of straight reporting--not the Editorial, or Opinion Pages. That's why he subscribes (or did) to The Financial Times.

Personally, I tend to check out FT, WaPo, and the NYT and a couple other major corporatist newspapers--then, check out what I find.

IOW, 'trust, but verify.'

Mostly, I look for 'quotes'--especially, from lawmakers.

IMHO, it's a mistake to only read progressive media, since they have a bias, too. I'll soon be posting conflicting quotes from a lawmaker, made days apart. They were made to WaPo, and days later, to millennial-targeting Vice News.

If anything, I'm more interested in what a lawmaker is willing to say to a national audience, than what he/she says to his/her supporters. I say that, because, (IMO) it's a given that lawmakers will throw 'red meat' to their Base--often greatly exaggerating their stances on issues. What they're willing to say to a broader audience, therefore, holds considerably more credence with me.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish Dramatist & Socialist
"We [corporations] are the government!" Actor John Colicos (1978)

Things like corporate ownership changes, controlling interests and agendas were definitely best located in business/investment news and too-often not mentioned at all anywhere that I could find outside of them, back in the day. Not that I've been up to any such basic research for freaking ever... life may mean nothing, since money is typically everything in these areas, but some very interesting stuff could be found.

regarding sourcing material--the papers that 'cater' to the One Percent, are often the most factually correct. IOW, publishers don't tend to lie to them.

BTW, he was speaking of straight reporting--not the Editorial, or Opinion Pages. That's why he subscribes (or did) to The Financial Times.

Personally, I tend to check out FT, WaPo, and the NYT and a couple other major corporatist newspapers--then, check out what I find.

IOW, 'trust, but verify.'

Mostly, I look for 'quotes'--especially, from lawmakers.

IMHO, it's a mistake to only read progressive media, since they have a bias, too. I'll soon be posting conflicting quotes from a lawmaker, made days apart. They were made to WaPo, and days later, to millennial-targeting Vice News.

If anything, I'm more interested in what a lawmaker is willing to say to a national audience, than what he/she says to his/her supporters. I say that, because, (IMO) it's a given that lawmakers will throw 'red meat' to their Base--often greatly exaggerating their stances on issues. What they're willing to say to a broader audience, therefore, holds considerably more credence with me.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

I totally see your point; such details as corporate ownership/tell-tale stock changes, controlling interests and agendas were definitely best located in business/investment news and too-often not mentioned at all anywhere that I could find outside of them, back in the day. Not that I've been up to any such very basic research for freaking ever... life may mean nothing to various business interests/experts, since money is typically everything in these areas, but some very interesting stuff could be found sometimes even by us poors attempting to assess theories or whatever.

Interruption means 'page cannot be verified or viewed' so I'll bet this double-posts...

regarding sourcing material--the papers that 'cater' to the One Percent, are often the most factually correct. IOW, publishers don't tend to lie to them.

BTW, he was speaking of straight reporting--not the Editorial, or Opinion Pages. That's why he subscribes (or did) to The Financial Times.

Personally, I tend to check out FT, WaPo, and the NYT and a couple other major corporatist newspapers--then, check out what I find.

IOW, 'trust, but verify.'

Mostly, I look for 'quotes'--especially, from lawmakers.

IMHO, it's a mistake to only read progressive media, since they have a bias, too. I'll soon be posting conflicting quotes from a lawmaker, made days apart. They were made to WaPo, and days later, to millennial-targeting Vice News.

If anything, I'm more interested in what a lawmaker is willing to say to a national audience, than what he/she says to his/her supporters. I say that, because, (IMO) it's a given that lawmakers will throw 'red meat' to their Base--often greatly exaggerating their stances on issues. What they're willing to say to a broader audience, therefore, holds considerably more credence with me.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

Actually, you just made Hartmann's point better than I did. There are definitely issues/policies which apply to 'the regular guy' that our crack corporatist media types routinely, if not stealthily, opt to post on their business pages--knowing good and well that the majority of folks don't bother to read this section. I have to say that Thom woke me up to this reality, for which I'm grateful.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

Could it be that 'they' know "knowledge is power!"

Have a good one!

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

I totally see your point; such details as corporate ownership/tell-tale stock changes, controlling interests and agendas were definitely best located in business/investment news and too-often not mentioned at all anywhere that I could find outside of them, back in the day. Not that I've been up to any such very basic research for freaking ever... life may mean nothing to various business interests/experts, since money is typically everything in these areas, but some very interesting stuff could be found sometimes even by us poors attempting to assess theories or whatever.

Interruption means 'page cannot be verified or viewed' so I'll bet this double-posts...

up

2 users have voted.

—

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish Dramatist & Socialist
"We [corporations] are the government!" Actor John Colicos (1978)

Actually, you just made Hartmann's point better than I did. There are definitely issues/policies which apply to 'the regular guy' that our crack corporatist media types routinely, if not stealthily, opt to post on their business pages--knowing good and well that the majority of folks don't bother to read this section. I have to say that Thom woke me up to this reality, for which I'm grateful.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

Could it be that 'they' know "knowledge is power!"

Have a good one!

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

If I were Thom Hartmann, though, I'd be keeping a much lower profile these days.

regarding sourcing material--the papers that 'cater' to the One Percent, are often the most factually correct. IOW, publishers don't tend to lie to them.

BTW, he was speaking of straight reporting--not the Editorial, or Opinion Pages. That's why he subscribes (or did) to The Financial Times.

Personally, I tend to check out FT, WaPo, and the NYT and a couple other major corporatist newspapers--then, check out what I find.

IOW, 'trust, but verify.'

Mostly, I look for 'quotes'--especially, from lawmakers.

IMHO, it's a mistake to only read progressive media, since they have a bias, too. I'll soon be posting conflicting quotes from a lawmaker, made days apart. They were made to WaPo, and days later, to millennial-targeting Vice News.

If anything, I'm more interested in what a lawmaker is willing to say to a national audience, than what he/she says to his/her supporters. I say that, because, (IMO) it's a given that lawmakers will throw 'red meat' to their Base--often greatly exaggerating their stances on issues. What they're willing to say to a broader audience, therefore, holds considerably more credence with me.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

I haven't listened to Hartmann (to speak of) for several years. So, I'm really not sure what kind of profile he's keeping these days. But, that was his advice about 7 or 8 years ago.

I've heard from others that he supported FSC during the General Election, which pretty much confirmed what I had come to think of his politics--not as 'liberal' as he would try to make out. OTOH, I enjoyed listening to him for a number of years--he seemed to be well informed on several topics.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

If I were Thom Hartmann, though, I'd be keeping a much lower profile these days.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish Dramatist & Socialist
"We [corporations] are the government!" Actor John Colicos (1978)

Right after I commented on Thom Hartmann, I stumbled upon his latest TV episode, which was an interview with Richard Wolf on US income tax rates and how they define the destiny of the nation. It really hit the spot. (Below.)

I appreciate Hartmann. But at the time of the elections, he was not of sound mind. His buy-in to "Russia hacked the elections" world was shrill and disturbing. There was hysteria in his manner. The notable journalists, who embraced the ridiculous Russia-Hacking ruse, have stopped referring to it. They know what went down. Within limits, they do good work. But they are faulty and weak and their intellectual reasoning can never again be trusted.

I haven't listened to Hartmann (to speak of) for several years. So, I'm really not sure what kind of profile he's keeping these days. But, that was his advice about 7 or 8 years ago.

I've heard from others that he supported FSC during the General Election, which pretty much confirmed what I had come to think of his politics--not as 'liberal' as he would try to make out. OTOH, I enjoyed listening to him for a number of years--he seemed to be well informed on several topics.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

@Unabashed Liberal
the false narratives. They might provide the facts, say on what's currently happening in Syria, but they'll also plant the false narratives in there, saying "civil war", fighting terrorists, etc., to continue the big lies.
If people don't know any better, that's when it's dangerous. Most people don't know any better. And I've seen civil war for Syria used here up until just recently. Even when people think they're well informed, they can still absorb those false narratives.

regarding sourcing material--the papers that 'cater' to the One Percent, are often the most factually correct. IOW, publishers don't tend to lie to them.

BTW, he was speaking of straight reporting--not the Editorial, or Opinion Pages. That's why he subscribes (or did) to The Financial Times.

Personally, I tend to check out FT, WaPo, and the NYT and a couple other major corporatist newspapers--then, check out what I find.

IOW, 'trust, but verify.'

Mostly, I look for 'quotes'--especially, from lawmakers.

IMHO, it's a mistake to only read progressive media, since they have a bias, too. I'll soon be posting conflicting quotes from a lawmaker, made days apart. They were made to WaPo, and days later, to millennial-targeting Vice News.

If anything, I'm more interested in what a lawmaker is willing to say to a national audience, than what he/she says to his/her supporters. I say that, because, (IMO) it's a given that lawmakers will throw 'red meat' to their Base--often greatly exaggerating their stances on issues. What they're willing to say to a broader audience, therefore, holds considerably more credence with me.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

They say that the best liars mix lies and truth with a careful - if dirty - hand... they wouldn't lie to us about that, would they? lol

#15 the false narratives. They might provide the facts, say on what's currently happening in Syria, but they'll also plant the false narratives in there, saying "civil war", fighting terrorists, etc., to continue the big lies.
If people don't know any better, that's when it's dangerous. Most people don't know any better. And I've seen civil war for Syria used here up until just recently. Even when people think they're well informed, they can still absorb those false narratives.

up

7 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

that risk. The only answer that I can offer--folks need to be very discerning, and take pains to try to check out, or verify, what they read at Establishment mouthpieces.

For sure, I don't take much of anything that I read at face value--without further checking, that is. Hey, remember, I'm a retired fed, too. I was in the system too many years, not to be highly skeptical. Actually, I rather thought that it showed!

In the end, there are some facts that are normally only ferreted out by news reporters, and they are often on the payroll of the newspapers. I understand that they exist (mostly) to serve the One Percent. And, that stinks. But I don't know any way to get around it.

After all, I could show up at my neighborhood coffee klatch every day, until I turned blue. But, like me, those folks don't know what our lawmakers are up to--unless they read it, or hear it from a media source. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that I don't read other than MSM. I do. If I'm checking something out, I'll normally read everything I can find on it, regardless of the source.

Bottom line, I understand and share your frustration. I also don't dispute that the MSM is a propaganda tool. I just do my best to factor that in, mostly by delving pretty deep into an issue by checking out the details presented (with several sources), in order to avoid being punked.

Then, I wish for the best!

Mollie

#15 the false narratives. They might provide the facts, say on what's currently happening in Syria, but they'll also plant the false narratives in there, saying "civil war", fighting terrorists, etc., to continue the big lies.
If people don't know any better, that's when it's dangerous. Most people don't know any better. And I've seen civil war for Syria used here up until just recently. Even when people think they're well informed, they can still absorb those false narratives.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish Dramatist & Socialist
"We [corporations] are the government!" Actor John Colicos (1978)

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

The key word is fallacy. It is the more general form of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominen (or it is a more particular case of the genetic fallacy)

The source has nothing to do with the facts. I once needed a "citation" to satisfy the "link please" crowd at top. I knew it was in a Congressional submcommittee report but couldn't retrieve it, even via Thomas, from my home computer. Since I knew specific unique details and phrases, I was able to enter them into a google search, fund the material in question cited somewhere, copied the page heading and provided same as link.

I almost got banned by mob action because "It is a bannable offence to link to a conspiracy site" - both a lie and linguistic nonsense. And, of course, there was a the fact I had read that information in the documents department in the basement of the main library on the UC Berkeley campus and I knew damn well that it was true, regardless of where I had found a linkable reference. I did not, at that time, even know the site I had used as a source nor that it was prone to post things that TOP types were won't to call conspiracy theories, or I would have noted that and noted that it is irrelevant because genetic fallacy.

So post what you post and cite your cites. If you consider them iffy, acknowledge that, but note that such iffiness is not in itself conclusive.

up

4 users have voted.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --